6 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Defending the open Internet (again): Our latest brief to the Supreme Court
It's not confusing. Making changes to accommodate this will be expensive for them and, while it aligns with the views of reddit's founders, free speech has become counter-cultural.
IMO, Reddit's policy is fine for bespoke topics or subreddits about public personalities where those persons have moderation rights.
But who should have moderation privileges over broad topics like /r/politics or /r/science?
For every example like the /r/StarTrek example I can cite 10 where someone was banned for expressing a simple political opinion. This leads to the kinds of bubbles that people refer to when they say social media is destroying the country.
I'd like to see a change where subreddits whose names appear in a dictionary have a standardized set of moderation rules that is basically "you must obey the law."
Short of that, I hope they lose.
Citing the 1A to shut down speech seems pretty perverse, legal arguments aside.
Comment by kajarago at 22/02/2024 at 06:26 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Not to mention all the brigading